Inside the Criminal Mind, by Stanton Samenow, seeks to take the reader inside the mind of a criminal, explaining how they do (and do not) think. In it, he overturns many stereotypes that our society holds about criminals.
The book argues that poverty does not cause good, rational people to turn into criminals. There are those who are wealthy that are criminals and there are those who are impoverished that are criminals. Statistics show that, in times of financial distress for the country, crime rates actually tend to go down. As a result, it cannot be argued that criminals are a result of poverty.
The author makes the claim that parents do not turn their children into criminals. Instead, children are born with a type of personality and, while they can be taught to make better choices of how to handle that personality, sometimes they resist all attempts at management by others. It is often thought that criminals result from households that are too strict, abusive, or too lenient. However, the author relates that, in his experience, how children respond to certain situations depends on their choices. Most of the abused do not turn into abusers. While abuse an neglect can harm one's development, if a person is abused and turns into an abuser, it is because that person chose to abuse others. For every criminal who was abused, there is at least one law-abiding citizen that was abused, as well. He cites several examples of parents who reached out to him for help, after they tried everything to rein in their children, to no avail. Often, children with criminal personality will lie to manipulate their families, flat out refuse to accept punishments, and make everyone around them miserable. When questioned about their choices, they will blame everyone but themselves.
In dealing with the stereotype that crime is a result of peer pressure, Sameow points out that those who are honest, law-abiding people tend to avoid hanging out with delinquents and, should they fall in with the wrong crowd, sooner or later extricate themselves from the situation. He points out that many criminals, when questioned, are critical of the habits of law-abiding citizens, and would rather have friends who are criminals than hang out with the right crowd.
Schools and trouble getting a job are not at fault because criminals often reject these things. Students with criminal minds are often disruptive in class, drop out, and/or simply don't apply themselves. Criminals with jobs often don't show up for work, demonstrate hostility towards coworkers, steal from their employers, and behave in other ways that jeopardize their employment.
Samenow then goes into detail about how criminals do think. He claims that criminals blame everyone and everything but themselves for their crimes. They view others as either useful to them or getting in their way. They commit crimes for their own benefit and without empathy for or thought of anyone else.
The author tackles the issue of rehabilitation by claiming that, in order to rehabilitate a criminal, one needs to teach them empathy, guilt, selflessness, and dedication, skills that they did not have in the first place. He cites high recidivism rates and points out that, just because a criminal is not rearrested, does not necessarily mean that he/she has reformed, as it is possible that he/she just got better at getting away with their crimes. He does believe habilitation is possible, but that it requires a complete change in the way a criminal thinks and that current rehabilitation practices do not ensure that this takes place. Instead, he argues that habilitation can be done by criminals becoming responsible in every aspect of their lives, challenging decisions and thinking patterns that they used to have, and having a zero-tolerance policy for slipping up.
This book is well-written, provides several examples, and is written by a man who has studied and worked with criminals. It provides credible assertions and backs them up. However, I feel as if it talks more about a specific type of criminal than all criminals. Certainly his conclusions can be applied to most criminals in developed countries, where the majority of the population is not in constant danger of starvation and homelessness. However, I do believe that there are cases where people are pushed to crime by poverty and circumstance beyond their control. Yes, they do have to make a choice and yes, many face similar situations and choose to follow the law. However, I think that there are millions of people in the world that go hungry and do not have adequate shelter (some even in developed nations). Samenow does state that the average person can be put in situations where they may commit crimes but that they will extricate themselves from the situation as soon as possible. I cannot help but think, though, that this statement makes the assumption that situations always end. What about the people who face hunger and homelessness day in and day out with no foreseeable end? Who live their whole lives without the option to extricate themselves from the situation? I remember reading a case where reporters spent a day interviewing a boy in one third world nation and, upon realizing that they had kept him from his job (rummaging in a trash heap for items that his family could use or sell), they offered to take him shopping. He asked them what shopping was. I don't know many criminals and certainly not many people who live in abject poverty. However, knowing that the drive to survive is the strongest drive humans have, I cannot help but feel that there are many people in these situations who might not want to steal, but who may resort to crime in order to survive. I'd imagine that these people are very different from the criminal described by Samenow and that, while they do make choices, it is not out of a lack of empathy or out of lack of morals, but out of a need to survive. Perhaps if I traveled the world and studied different types of criminals, I'd change my mind. However, as it is, I cannot help but partially disagree with Samenow. As a result, I give this book a four out of five.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?... and Other Strange Questions From The Inbox At The Vatican Observatory, by Guy Consolmagno, SJ and Paul Mueller, SJ
Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?... and Other Strange Questions From The Inbox At The Vatican Observatory, by Guy Consolmagno, SJ, and Paul Mueller, SJ, is a transcript of debates that were held between these two men, both Jesuits and scientists, who work for the Vatican Observatory. This book was difficult to review for several reasons. The first is that there are things that I did not like about the way they did the style of the book and yet I can also see how it might have been a decision they made in order to make the conversation seem more authentic. Another is that I did not agree with some of their conclusions. I also am Protestant so I am not sure how much that might account for me not understanding or agreeing with the authors' conjectures. Then there's the fact that, while I understand some science, it's mostly based off the writing of other people; I haven't done too many actual experiments into many of these areas. Because of some of these issues, I wasn't sure whether I should review something one way if I could also understand how the authors came to their decisions. I also wasn't sure whether or not I should review things when some of it might be my opinion against their's. Eventually, however, I just decided that, despite these issues, I was entitled to an opinion (even if I came to it using faulty reasoning) and I'd just write the review.
Right off the bat, Consolmagno and Meuller state that their purpose is to provide possible answers to some of the questions that they are often asked and to demonstrate that science and faith do not have to be at war.I liked them stating their purpose at the beginning of the book. It makes it clear to the reader why they are publishing the book, instead of forcing the reader to wait until the end of the book in order to divine what was going through the authors' minds when they decided to write their book.
After this introduction, the two tackle the question of whether the Big Bang Theory or the Genesis account of creation is true. This part I didn't like that much. They dismiss the idea of a literal "7-Days" creation theory a bit too quickly for my liking. For instance, Consolmagno and Meuller state that there are several creation stories in the Bible and they contradict each other. I am unaware of any Biblical creation story other than Genesis. Sure, there are verses that refer to it. However, I am unaware of any that are actual stories, as opposed to references, let alone ones that contradict it. Now, it's possible I'm forgetting some part of the Bible, but that confusion could have been solved by including the verses and/or stories in the book for reference. The authors also state that the Bible claims that the Earth is flat, when it actually refers to the Earth as circular (Isaiah 40: 21-22; Proverbs 8:27). The fact that the authors fail to take these verses into account makes me questions how much they considered all the possibilities. They go through a discussion of how different people throughout history interpreted the Genesis story, focusing a lot on how it is only recently that the Catholic Church has rejected a less than literal interpretation of Genesis. At the end of this discussion, they seem to arrive at the conclusion that it is probably neither current science nor our interpretation of scripture is correct because, as demonstrated by their talk of science, what science believes about how the world was formed will undoubtedly change with time, and we may not be interpreting scripture correctly. While I do believe this is a valid point, I disagree with the way it was argued. I feel that the discussion of histories of scientific views was done in a way that was too lengthy. It took up most of the section and yet wasn't related back to the question at hand until the very end of the section. I don't know if it would count as an actual digression,as it was relatable to the question, but I kept wondering when they were going to tie it all together and make a statement that answered the question. The authors did discuss the Big Bang Theory, but I don't think they went into enough depth. They seem to assume that modern science points towards it and, while many people do believe in the Big Bang, there are those who argue against it and I have to say that a lot of their arguments are very convincing. For instance, why is it that everything in nature goes from order to chaos, whereas the Big Bang Theory proposes that there was chaos and then order? How come science overlooks the vast improbability of life reacting in just the right way to create the building blocks of life, then on top of that, those building blocks, set in a environment with lots of obstacles, managed to arrange themselves, without guidance, into a life-form, then that life-form mutated to form more complex life-forms, then...well, you get the picture. Like I said, I am going off other scientists' findings, not my own. I don't have a major in science and I do not even know how to begin conducting the experiments necessary to find the answers to these questions. However, seeing as the authors are debating whether the Big Bang Theory is credible, I think that they should at least consider some of these questions and explain why they are or are not valid.
The next section focuses on what happened to Pluto (or why it isn't considered a planet anymore). They explain that the way things are categorized change over time and that, given the current way that the term "planet" is defined, does not match Pluto. Because of this, for data and cataloging purposes, it is more accurate to categorize Pluto with smaller bodies. I still feel like they discussed thing at a longer length than they needed to. The example they used to explain Pluto's reclassification was the similar reclassification of meteorites. In my opinion, they spent longer on meteorites than necessary. However, unlike the first section, every point was linked back to the main issue (the reclassification of Pluto) much quicker than it had been before. They do spend about 6-7 pages discussing how our understanding of meteorites has changed before referring back to Pluto, but that is nothing compared to the lengthy list of historical understandings of creation that came before the eventual link back to whether the Big Bang or Genesis is correct. However, Mueller and Consolmagno do provide what I feel is an adequate answer to the question. That nothing happened to Pluto; our definition of the word "planet" changed and, for the purpose of accuracy and communication, we needed to change how Pluto was classified.
The following question focuses on what happened to Galileo. A prevalent view is that Galileo was convicted of suspicion heresy for claiming that the Earth moved around the sun, put under house-arrest, and denied visitors. Mueller and Consalmagno acknowledge that he was convicted of heresy and put under house-arrest, but that he was allowed visitors. They also argue that, while his scientific views did play an important role in his sentencing, it had more to do with politics at the time and Galileo's penchant for rubbing his superiority of other people in their face. I haven't studied Galileo's life in-depth but, from what I can tell, the authors give a factual representation of his life. I know many would disagree with their interpretation of what led to his conviction and punishment. However, their reasoning is sound, being based off of known events, writings, and knowledge of the people involved. Because of this and because none of us were there or knew the people involved, their opinion seems as good as anyone's. In addition, the, for want of a better word, digressions, that are present in the previous chapters are not present in this one. The authors present a focused argument/conversation that the reader can follow.
Question number four tackles the question, "What was the Star of Bethlehem?" The authors quickly dismiss the theory of a nova or a supernova by stating that there is no evidence of either having occurred at the time period. The theory of the Star of Bethlehem being a comet is also dismissed because, according to the authors, comets were seen as a sign of doom at that time, and people were unlikely to view it as a sign of hope. Then, the authors discuss the possibility that it didn't exist and was just something to embellish what actually happened, and the possibility that it was a miracle. Eventually, they conclude that a definitive answer is, as of now, impossible.Now, some people might be frustrated with the lack of a definitive answer. However, in my opinion, the authors did this question justice. While there are many possible and even probable explanations, seeing as we were not there, we cannot know for sure. By not pretending that they can give a definitive answer, they are only being honest. They do provide different possibilities, which is all that we can ponder.
The fifth question deals with what will happen at the end of the Earth. The two authors answer with what science supposes will happen and how people might deal with things like the sun dying, climate change, etc. However, they don't deal much with what the Bible claims about the end of the world. They sort of just state that Jesus will come back and rule, but don't go into much depth. I think it was written with the assumption that most people knew the prophecies and/or that most people wouldn't be interested in the details of the Biblical side of the question. Now, I know some people aren't interested in it. However, as the book is supposed to be about faith and science, I think that both sides should have been given equal consideration. Also, they do go off on some tangents in this section which, while not completely unrelated, don't seem absolutely vital to the question at hand.
Finally, the book arrives at the titular question. The authors decide that they would baptize an extraterrestrial, but only if she (or he; they use she, but they probably just do so in the generic form) asks them to. They then delve into how baptism should be a gift, not forced on someone, and that extraterrestrials may not want to be baptized. However, should they exist and want to be baptized, then they are obviously sentient creatures of God and have the right to be baptized. The section was clear and focused, not veering off topic.
Overall, I think the book is interesting. It does raise some questions and I did learn some things. However, I don't think I'd read it from cover to cover again (rather, if I was interested in a specific topic, I might just turn to that section). For one thing, the authors seem to digress too much. While I can kind of see excusing this because the book is supposed to be a conversation and conversations have digressions, it made me lose interest in the book at times and wish they'd just focus on the question. Another thing that bothered me is that they do not always give an equal balance to science and faith. While some questions have more to do with one than the other (whether one would baptize an extraterrestrial has more to do with faith while the reclassifying of Pluto has more to do with science), others, such as the end of the world and Genesis vs. the Big Bang, deal with both equally and I found that they tended to focus on science more than faith. I wouldn't mind so much if they made it more equal, but both questions sort of brushed the faith part aside. As this book is supposed to be about bother science and religion, I feel like we should have had more of an equal debate. All this being said, I'd give this book a 3 out of 5.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
Right off the bat, Consolmagno and Meuller state that their purpose is to provide possible answers to some of the questions that they are often asked and to demonstrate that science and faith do not have to be at war.I liked them stating their purpose at the beginning of the book. It makes it clear to the reader why they are publishing the book, instead of forcing the reader to wait until the end of the book in order to divine what was going through the authors' minds when they decided to write their book.
After this introduction, the two tackle the question of whether the Big Bang Theory or the Genesis account of creation is true. This part I didn't like that much. They dismiss the idea of a literal "7-Days" creation theory a bit too quickly for my liking. For instance, Consolmagno and Meuller state that there are several creation stories in the Bible and they contradict each other. I am unaware of any Biblical creation story other than Genesis. Sure, there are verses that refer to it. However, I am unaware of any that are actual stories, as opposed to references, let alone ones that contradict it. Now, it's possible I'm forgetting some part of the Bible, but that confusion could have been solved by including the verses and/or stories in the book for reference. The authors also state that the Bible claims that the Earth is flat, when it actually refers to the Earth as circular (Isaiah 40: 21-22; Proverbs 8:27). The fact that the authors fail to take these verses into account makes me questions how much they considered all the possibilities. They go through a discussion of how different people throughout history interpreted the Genesis story, focusing a lot on how it is only recently that the Catholic Church has rejected a less than literal interpretation of Genesis. At the end of this discussion, they seem to arrive at the conclusion that it is probably neither current science nor our interpretation of scripture is correct because, as demonstrated by their talk of science, what science believes about how the world was formed will undoubtedly change with time, and we may not be interpreting scripture correctly. While I do believe this is a valid point, I disagree with the way it was argued. I feel that the discussion of histories of scientific views was done in a way that was too lengthy. It took up most of the section and yet wasn't related back to the question at hand until the very end of the section. I don't know if it would count as an actual digression,as it was relatable to the question, but I kept wondering when they were going to tie it all together and make a statement that answered the question. The authors did discuss the Big Bang Theory, but I don't think they went into enough depth. They seem to assume that modern science points towards it and, while many people do believe in the Big Bang, there are those who argue against it and I have to say that a lot of their arguments are very convincing. For instance, why is it that everything in nature goes from order to chaos, whereas the Big Bang Theory proposes that there was chaos and then order? How come science overlooks the vast improbability of life reacting in just the right way to create the building blocks of life, then on top of that, those building blocks, set in a environment with lots of obstacles, managed to arrange themselves, without guidance, into a life-form, then that life-form mutated to form more complex life-forms, then...well, you get the picture. Like I said, I am going off other scientists' findings, not my own. I don't have a major in science and I do not even know how to begin conducting the experiments necessary to find the answers to these questions. However, seeing as the authors are debating whether the Big Bang Theory is credible, I think that they should at least consider some of these questions and explain why they are or are not valid.
The next section focuses on what happened to Pluto (or why it isn't considered a planet anymore). They explain that the way things are categorized change over time and that, given the current way that the term "planet" is defined, does not match Pluto. Because of this, for data and cataloging purposes, it is more accurate to categorize Pluto with smaller bodies. I still feel like they discussed thing at a longer length than they needed to. The example they used to explain Pluto's reclassification was the similar reclassification of meteorites. In my opinion, they spent longer on meteorites than necessary. However, unlike the first section, every point was linked back to the main issue (the reclassification of Pluto) much quicker than it had been before. They do spend about 6-7 pages discussing how our understanding of meteorites has changed before referring back to Pluto, but that is nothing compared to the lengthy list of historical understandings of creation that came before the eventual link back to whether the Big Bang or Genesis is correct. However, Mueller and Consolmagno do provide what I feel is an adequate answer to the question. That nothing happened to Pluto; our definition of the word "planet" changed and, for the purpose of accuracy and communication, we needed to change how Pluto was classified.
The following question focuses on what happened to Galileo. A prevalent view is that Galileo was convicted of suspicion heresy for claiming that the Earth moved around the sun, put under house-arrest, and denied visitors. Mueller and Consalmagno acknowledge that he was convicted of heresy and put under house-arrest, but that he was allowed visitors. They also argue that, while his scientific views did play an important role in his sentencing, it had more to do with politics at the time and Galileo's penchant for rubbing his superiority of other people in their face. I haven't studied Galileo's life in-depth but, from what I can tell, the authors give a factual representation of his life. I know many would disagree with their interpretation of what led to his conviction and punishment. However, their reasoning is sound, being based off of known events, writings, and knowledge of the people involved. Because of this and because none of us were there or knew the people involved, their opinion seems as good as anyone's. In addition, the, for want of a better word, digressions, that are present in the previous chapters are not present in this one. The authors present a focused argument/conversation that the reader can follow.
Question number four tackles the question, "What was the Star of Bethlehem?" The authors quickly dismiss the theory of a nova or a supernova by stating that there is no evidence of either having occurred at the time period. The theory of the Star of Bethlehem being a comet is also dismissed because, according to the authors, comets were seen as a sign of doom at that time, and people were unlikely to view it as a sign of hope. Then, the authors discuss the possibility that it didn't exist and was just something to embellish what actually happened, and the possibility that it was a miracle. Eventually, they conclude that a definitive answer is, as of now, impossible.Now, some people might be frustrated with the lack of a definitive answer. However, in my opinion, the authors did this question justice. While there are many possible and even probable explanations, seeing as we were not there, we cannot know for sure. By not pretending that they can give a definitive answer, they are only being honest. They do provide different possibilities, which is all that we can ponder.
The fifth question deals with what will happen at the end of the Earth. The two authors answer with what science supposes will happen and how people might deal with things like the sun dying, climate change, etc. However, they don't deal much with what the Bible claims about the end of the world. They sort of just state that Jesus will come back and rule, but don't go into much depth. I think it was written with the assumption that most people knew the prophecies and/or that most people wouldn't be interested in the details of the Biblical side of the question. Now, I know some people aren't interested in it. However, as the book is supposed to be about faith and science, I think that both sides should have been given equal consideration. Also, they do go off on some tangents in this section which, while not completely unrelated, don't seem absolutely vital to the question at hand.
Finally, the book arrives at the titular question. The authors decide that they would baptize an extraterrestrial, but only if she (or he; they use she, but they probably just do so in the generic form) asks them to. They then delve into how baptism should be a gift, not forced on someone, and that extraterrestrials may not want to be baptized. However, should they exist and want to be baptized, then they are obviously sentient creatures of God and have the right to be baptized. The section was clear and focused, not veering off topic.
Overall, I think the book is interesting. It does raise some questions and I did learn some things. However, I don't think I'd read it from cover to cover again (rather, if I was interested in a specific topic, I might just turn to that section). For one thing, the authors seem to digress too much. While I can kind of see excusing this because the book is supposed to be a conversation and conversations have digressions, it made me lose interest in the book at times and wish they'd just focus on the question. Another thing that bothered me is that they do not always give an equal balance to science and faith. While some questions have more to do with one than the other (whether one would baptize an extraterrestrial has more to do with faith while the reclassifying of Pluto has more to do with science), others, such as the end of the world and Genesis vs. the Big Bang, deal with both equally and I found that they tended to focus on science more than faith. I wouldn't mind so much if they made it more equal, but both questions sort of brushed the faith part aside. As this book is supposed to be about bother science and religion, I feel like we should have had more of an equal debate. All this being said, I'd give this book a 3 out of 5.
Disclosure: I received a copy of this book from the publisher through the Blogging For Books program in exchange for an honest review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)